extension_uninstall

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal an important side-effect: that Chrome will show a confirmation dialog, implying the uninstall may not complete without user approval. However, it does not disclose whether the tool returns a status, whether errors occur if the extension is not found, or whether the operation is reversible (it likely isn't). The lack of annotations makes this a moderate gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, two sentences, and the key behavioral note (confirmation prompt) is front-loaded in the second sentence. There is no filler, and it conveys the essential information efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the action and the confirmation side-effect, but it does not mention potential errors (e.g., invalid ID, non-installed extension), return semantics, or whether the uninstall request is asynchronous. The complexity is low, so this is a minor gap, but with no annotations, the agent lacks full guidance.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has one required 'id' parameter with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explicitly explain what the 'id' refers to (the extension ID), but it is clear from context that 'id' is the extension's identifier. Since there is only one parameter and the tool name makes its purpose obvious, the description adds little beyond the schema, but it doesn't leave a critical gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (request uninstall) and the resource (another extension), and it implies the tool operates on a single extension via the 'id' parameter. It distinguishes this from other extension operations (list, get, enable, dev-load) by focusing on uninstall. However, it could be more explicit that it does not uninstall the current extension or that it is for third-party extensions only.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives partial guidance by noting that Chrome always presents a confirmation prompt, which warns the agent that uninstall may not be immediate or may require user interaction. But it does not state when to use this tool vs alternatives like extension_set_enabled (for toggling) or extension_dev_remove (for development extensions). There is no explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.